Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Specifying interfaces of "read-ahead" words
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:08:29 -0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <op.wsgh0fljsu5d0p@david>
References: <6ee6566a-e1a5-4b62-8209-4b4f0613da5c@w4g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> <csrg06b9teb6$.6dudas4gdnfo.dlg@40tude.net> <26bbb8c2-d363-42b7-8fe3-37d6ca1fff76@o5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> <op.wsb0u7p9su5d0p@david> <a50ecc49-2d8e-4037-b819-825c550fb67e@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <op.wsfovdntsu5d0p@david> <f123cfba-f320-4bb3-8ea0-5cde574ea0c9@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8c7a470a0c16a8a8641affb1a9a6ce52"; logging-data="22835"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GoCsaAz1sezjxwl9dJXIl"
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.14 (Win32)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wT77+VlnHXHbm8BCInjpZy4qn6A=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:19713

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:23:13 -0000, Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Feb 13, 7:39 am, "Peter Knaggs" <p...@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:10:49 -0000, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 11, 8:07 am, "Peter Knaggs" <p...@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:54:32 -0000, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Sure, but "<spaces>name" does not come from the _stack_ so why is  
>> >> > it shown on the input side of a _stack signature_.
>>
>> >> Because it is a "signature" rather than a "stack signature".  The >>  
>> input stream forms part of the input to the word.
>>
>> > When did this name/usage change take place? Was it with the adoption
>> > of ANS?
>>
>> ANS refers to it as a "stack notation" (2.2.2) although in "Parsed-text
>> notation" (2.2.3) it then adds the " notation to the stack description.  
>> I have always thought of it as a signature, it makes it much easer to  
>> reason about the stack operation.
>
> It's the same in 200x IIRC. I would suggest that 2.2.2 could be
> improved in 200x. I'm not suggesting that the practice change, but
> 2.2.2 could probably be re-worded (i.e. not calling it a *stack*
> signature since the notation describes more than the stack signature).

I look forward to receiving your revised paragraph(s).

-- 
Peter Knaggs